> On 9/1/2021 9:39 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 9/1/21 5:37 AM, Avri Altman wrote: > >> It is essentially up to the platform to decide what further actions need > >> to be taken. So add a designated vop for that. Each chipset vendor can > >> decide if it wants to use the thermal subsystem, hw monitor, or some > >> Privet implementation. > > > > Why to make chipset vendors define what to do in case of extreme > > temperatures? I'd prefer a single implementation in ufshcd.c instead of > > making each vendor come up with a different implementation. The storage device is merely acting as a temperature sensor. This info, jointly with other temperature sensors of the system, Should be used elsewhere in a much broader scope - probably by Android. Either way, ufshcd is hardly the place for those decisions. > > > I think it should be either i.e. if a vendor specific implementation is > defined use that else use the generic implementation in ufshcd. > There may be a bunch of things that each vendor may need/want do > depending upon use-case, I imagine. I agree, and this is why I wanted to allow that that flexibility. But I get Bart's point. I will register the sensor in some subsystem. It should allow the required degrees of freedom. Thanks, Avri > > >> + void (*temp_notify)(struct ufs_hba *hba, u16 status); > > > > Please do not add new vops without adding at least one implementation of > > that vop. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bart. > > > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
